DOL says AIA are legal

[Adam Mashinini]

My apologies to you. I had the wrong wire. I did not mean any disrespect. I cannot believe that a 30 years+ expierence person in the trade can slip up THAT bad. I think some staff did the inspection and dropped the ball. Jan should pick it up if this was the case.

ps. i see the coc was issued for the "existing installation" and not any new wiring that was done? In court this simple tick has a "LOT of substance, believe me. Lawyers play it by the book, word for word, ang judges judge accordingly. Also, where is the "existing certificate" I see he indicates that there is one. This can complicated, fast and furious quickly.

On word on the "geia" and its accomplices. They ALWAYS find fault. corrupt to the bone.

[murdock]

this is one of the reason i do spot checks on any person who is working under my company banner...be it a safety issue os a shody workmanship issue...there is no excuse for a company just turning around and saying it must have been my staff or sub contractors fault...the way i see it if you cant even control the safety and quality of workmanship in your own company how do you expect the DOL or AIA or any other person for that matter...and if you as the owner cannot control it then you should employ a supervisor who reports to you.

[Sparks]

The bottom line is that Mr Bornman signed the COC. At the time of ihs "inspection" the "existing" wiring was ALL the wiring connected to the supply. The "original" installation with ALL subsecquent additions to that installation. The reason why the "existing" installation option is on the COC is so that when an addition is made to an installation, the "addition" can be certified seperately. The COC reads "existing" NOT "original".
Murdoch you are 100% correct and if they cannot afford to send a suitably qualified guy to do it they must do it themselves. And if someone else checks then that person should sign the COC.
For crying out loud it is your signature on the thing, how can you sign off something you have not even seen?
As for the "existing" COC, besides mention that there is not one and then again supplying details of one, I have no clue. It was not given to my nephew as should have been had it existed.
The DOL and Geia AIA did what I wanted so far. They came to site and gathered evidence. I have more expectations which take some time. The process must run it's course. I will wait for the time to lapse and then see what happens. What Mr Bornman must know is that this will not just dissappear. Any other person who works the same must also know that should I come across his work the same will happen. Was it an honest mistake? I think not. I gave hime ample time to rectify it and DOL have given him another two weeks. There are people's lives at stake. Our industry has a bad enough reputation as it is. We need to clean it up.

[Adam Mashinini]

Good luck.

[murdock]

this is one of the main reasons that...the industry is the state it is...90 % of the investigation are swept under the table because the customer couldnt be bothered with the hassles...but there is a catch...now when your customer decides to move it then becomes your problem...because they turn around and say..."but you have been my electrician for the last 2 years why didnt you fix the problems"...i just laugh and send them a qualote to sort out the repairs...been down that road tooo many times to let it bother me.

[Sparks]

An excerpt from the message I found on skype when I got home, from my nephew:

[01:31:44 PM] Albert: vincent will be here tomorrow at 10am to take a statement under oath against him
[01:34:40 PM] Albert: he says the guy from volta keeps hanging up the phone on him so he went their to deliver the letter the guy refused to sign it so now vincent said he doesnt want to co opperate at all and wants to know what happend so im giving him a statement tomorrow at 10 am
[01:35:05 PM] Albert: he says looks like we going to have to prosecute this guy

Vincent being the DOL inspector sent by Isaac the day after Warren the AIA was there.

I am starting to wonder if Mr Bornman has not perhaps suffered a stroke. I find it hard to believe that this can be the work ethic of a "highly recommended" contractor.

[AndyD]

Maybe he just wants his day in court for whatever reasons.?.?

[Adam Mashinini]

May i please give a few tips for courtcase. from 1st hand expierence. Make sure that the plaintiff can PROVE, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, that nobody altered the installation after the date of inspection. Remember is is up to you to prove that that, not the accused.

If the accused was not present during the geia OR the DOL inspection, your case becomes more complicated. Besides the fact if he was invited or not. The fact that the plaintiff was present does not count in his favour.

Photographs of the current condition of the installation means nothing in court. Do you have photos of the condition of the installation BREFORE the date of inspection (or on it) ? Very important, his lawyer will ask for that.


Make sure you have some money stashed away, you are going to need it. If the case falls through the accused will sue, and it will be an easy win.

just my 1c

[Adam Mashinini]

ps please keep us updated, this is going to get interesting.

[Sparks]

Thank you Adam for the warning & consideration, perhaps you could look at the COC at: https://www.theforumsa.co.za/documen...-scan-tfsa.pdf and then give your opinion of whether the COC should be declared valid or invalid and your reasons.
This is an exact copy of the original as issued with the exeption of censoring Mr Bornman's details until he had the opportunity to rectify the matter.

[murdock]

May i please give a few tips for courtcase. from 1st hand expierence. Make sure that the plaintiff can PROVE, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, that nobody altered the installation after the date of inspection. Remember is is up to you to prove that that, not the accused.

If the accused was not present during the geia OR the DOL inspection, your case becomes more complicated. Besides the fact if he was invited or not. The fact that the plaintiff was present does not count in his favour.

Photographs of the current condition of the installation means nothing in court. Do you have photos of the condition of the installation BREFORE the date of inspection (or on it) ? Very important, his lawyer will ask for that.


Make sure you have some money stashed away, you are going to need it. If the case falls through the accused will sue, and it will be an easy win.

just my 1c

so what you are telling me is that if for example the last 55 cocs i issued for a building are all invalid and if they tried to sue me for the cocs i issued...i would laugh them off because the company which was doing the work had not yet completed the entire installtion...they were still doing additional work... VOs
this is a scary thought...

looks like the only way going froward would be to indentify every single component which is covered by the coc...otherwise the coc is invalid the day you walk off site...because how could anyone prove without a doublt that there had been no changes.

[Adam Mashinini]

excatly murdock, that is what crook palmer and his accomplice warren tried to do to us. we did a coc on a factory. week or so after the tennants moved out and they ripped out all weldingplugs, isolators and most lightfittings. live bare wires everywhere. db covers removed from premises etc that type of thing. it was a mess. aia phoned us with an attitude and eventually the conversation was f u and f u.

we went to the site, took one look, went to the cop station, laid a charge of vandalism with the owner and ex-tennant of the building, the aia and the dol as main suspects since they were on the premises after our inspection.

they (corrupt aia) had loads of photos and stuff, we had nothing.

the police took photos of the damage, we had a case number, and from there it was an easy win.

[Adam Mashinini]

the thing is, most customers EXPECT a total makeover or a new installation once they have a new coc in their hands. sorry, it does not work that way. read the law for existing installtions.

and when they dont get their way, they run to a wireman buddy and/or the aia. the aia makes a list from here to kingdom come by twisting the law. and they alaways test an existing installation as a new installation! bull! different rules apply. read the ei act of 2009.

[Sparks]

Mr Bornman issued an invalid COC. He will have to explain that in court. The buyer is entitled to a valid COC, even if it is almost 2 years old. He was contracted to certify the installation, he has not done that.

AIA are not the only ones with photos, DOL and my nephew also have photos. The transferring attorneys were notified within an hour of handing the keys to my nephew that the COC is suspect. They received confirmation before the close of that day that the COC IS invalid.

Mr Bornman is not expected to revamp the entire installation. LOOK at the photo, the socket outlet has been removed, there are 2X 1.5 cables entering the coverplate to connect to a 30A circuit. The DB configuration is incorrect, the plug circuits are not wired through the faulty ELCB. the list goes on and on. Do you consider this to be a "reasonably safe" installation?

Just because the AIA jimped all over you does not mean that there are not chance taking SOB's issuing COCs' to unsupecting homeowners. The market is flooded with people dishing out blank signed COCs'.

[murdock]

excatly murdock, that is what crook palmer and his accomplice warren tried to do to us. we did a coc on a factory. week or so after the tennants moved out and they ripped out all weldingplugs, isolators and most lightfittings. live bare wires everywhere. db covers removed from premises etc that type of thing. it was a mess. aia phoned us with an attitude and eventually the conversation was f u and f u.

we went to the site, took one look, went to the cop station, laid a charge of vandalism with the owner and ex-tennant of the building, the aia and the dol as main suspects since they were on the premises after our inspection.

they (corrupt aia) had loads of photos and stuff, we had nothing.

the police took photos of the damage, we had a case number, and from there it was an easy win.

i have just had a similar thing but apparently daves company came to the rescue and signed over the coc...i refused to because they could not product a valid documentation of a registered person carrying out or supervising the repairs...so the company i was dealing with got hold of alcocks...who then treated the installation (nothing wrong with this because they dont know the history of the installtion) as an exsisting installation and i would assume they signed off if all was correct...saved me the hassle...because the installation was bad.